group 3- constitution

8/12/2019 Group 3- Constitution

1/4

I. BALANCED ECOLOGY

Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecolog y

Ar t. II Sec. 16 Thestate shall protect and advance the right of the people to balanced andhealthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature

Facts

This case is unique in that it is a class suit brought by 44 children, through their parents,

claiming that they bring the case in the name of theirgeneration as well as those generations

yet unborn.Aiming to stop deforestation, it was filed against the Secretary of theDepartment of

Environment and Natural Resources, seeking to have him cancel all the timber license

agreements(TLAs) in the country and to cease and desist from accepting and approving more

timber license agreements. The children invoked their right to a balanced and healthful ecology

and to protection by the State in its capacity as parens patriae.The petitioners claimed that the

DENR Secretary's refusal to cancel the TLAs and to stop issuing them was "contrary to the

highest law of humankind-- the natural lawand violative of plaintiffs' right to self-preservation

and perpetuation." The case was dismissed in the lower court, invoking the law on non-

impairment of contracts, so it was brought to theSupreme Court on certiorari.

Issue

Did the children have the legal standing to file the case?

Ruling

Yes. The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to

file the case based on the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility.Their right to a healthy

environment carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding

generations. In this, the Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations.

Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise

of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

I t was held that the peti t ioners, min ors duly joined by their parents, had a val idcause of action in questioning th e continued grant of Timber License Agreements

(TLAs) for commercial logging purposes, because the cause focuses on afundamental legal right to a balanced and h ealthful ecolog y.

Is the right to a balanced and healthful ecology any less im portant than any of the

civ i l and poli t ical rights enumerated in the Bil l of Rights? Explain.

Held: While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration

of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less

important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs

to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and

self-perpetuation, the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and

constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution

for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly

mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that

unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state

policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resourceshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resourceshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resourceshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resourceshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Department_of_Environment_and_Natural_Resources


2/4

upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the

day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also

for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of

sustaining life. (Oposa v . Factoran, Jr ., 224 SCRA 792 [1993][Davide] )

II. SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

(Article II, Section 6)

A. History

Before our country fell under American rule, the blanket of Catholicism covered the

archipelago. There was a union of church and state and Catholicism was the state religion

under the Spanish Constitution of 1876. Civil authorities exercised religious functions and the

friars exercised civil powers.Catholics alone enjoyed the right of engaging in public ceremonies

of worship.Although the Spanish Constitution itself was not extended to the Philippines,

Catholicism was also the established church in our country under the Spanish rule. Catholicism

was in fact protected by the Spanish Penal Code of 1884 which was in effect in the

Philippines. Some of the offenses in chapter six of the Penal Code entitled Crimes against

Religion and Worship referred to crimes against the state religion. The coming of theAmericans to our country, however, changed this state-church scheme for with the advent of

this regime, the unique American experiment of separation of church and state was

transported to Philippine soil.

B. RATIONALE:

To delineate the boundaries between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachment

by one against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective

exclusive jurisdictions

A union of Church and State, as aptly remarked, tends to destroy government and to

degrade religion.

It is also likely to result in conspiracy, well night irresistible because of its composite

strength, against the individuals right to worship.

There will be no violation of the establishment clause if:

1. The statute has a secular legislative purpose.

2. Its principal or primary effect is one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

3. It does not foster an excessive government entangled with religion.


3/4

INTRAMURAL RELIGIOUS DISPUTES

- outside the jurisdiction of the secular authorities, when they regard to religious

dogma and other matters of faith

- the civil courts may assume jurisdiction, where the dispute involves the property

rights of the religious group or the relation of the members where property rights are

involved

RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND WORSHIP

Two-fold aspect:

1. Freedom to believe - absolute as long as the belief is confined within the realm of

thought.

2. Freedom to act on ones beliefsubject to regulation where the belief is translated into

external acts that affect the public welfare.

RELIGIOUS TESTS

- constitutionally prohibited

- may result to clandestine attempts on the part of the government to prevent a

person from exercising his civil or political rights because of his religious beliefs.

III. SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY

Article 2, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution

Civilian authority is at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the

Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the

sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.

SUPREMACY OF CIVILIAN AUTHORITY

1. The supremacy of civilian authority over the military at all times even during war time is

inherent in a republican state, the sovereign people being civilians.

2. This provision is a safeguard against the military take-over if the government and a

subsequent military dictatorship.

3. There is a need of an express declaration in the present Constitution that the prime duty of

the Armed Forces is to protect the people and the State due to the experience of the nation

during the time of Martial law under ex-resident Marcos when the military was accused of

several human rights abuses and the military were favored in various way.

4. The President of the Republic of the Philippines is the head of the civilian government, and,

at the same time, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The

supremacy of civilian authority is expressly provided since the resources of the military should

not be disregarded.


4/4

CASE DIGEST:

IBP v. Hon. Ronaldo B. Zamora et al.

G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000

FACTS:

President Joseph Estrada ordered the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the

Philippine National Police (PNP) in visibility patrols around Metro Manila to stem the tide of

rising violence and crime. In response to such order, the PNP through Police Chief

Superintendent Edgar B. Aglipay issued Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 02/2000 which detailed the

joint visibility patrols called Task Force Tulungan. This was confirmed by a memorandum Pres.

Estrada issued dated 24 January 2000. On January 17, 2000, the IBP filed a petition to annul

LOI 02/2000 arguing that the deployment of the Marines is unconstitutional and is an incursion

by the military on the civilian functions of government as embodied in Article II, Sec. 3 and Art.XVI, Sec. 5(4) of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violates

the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of

the PNP.

RULING:The Marines render nothing more than assistance required in conducting the patrols. As

such there is no insidious incursion of the military civilian affairs nor can there be a violation of

the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution. The real authority in these operations is

lodged with the head of the civilian institution, the PNP, and not with the military.

It appears that the present petition is anchored on fear that once the armed forces are

deployed, the military will gain ascendancy, and thus place in peril our cherished liberties. Such

apprehensions, however, are unfounded. The power to call the armed forces is just that -

calling out the armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that in the

deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law, exceeded his

authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this Court is not inclined to overrule thePresidents determination of the factual basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or

suppress lawless violence.

One last point. Since the institution of the joint visibility patrol in January, 2000, not a

single citizen has complained that his political or civil rights have been violated as a result of the

deployment of the Marines. It was precisely to safeguard peace, tranquility and the civil liberties

of the people that the joint visibility patrol was conceived. Freedom and democracy will be in full

bloom only when people feel secure in their homes and in the streets, not when the shadows of

violence and anarchy constantly lurk in their midst.

Petition is dismissed.

group 3- constitution

Documents